BIOLOGY AND NURSING STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS …foster learning and advance knowledge (Raspa & Ward,...

Volume 5, Issue 2, 2012

BIOLOGY AND NURSING STUDENTS’

PERCEPTIONS OF A WEB-BASED

INFORMATION LITERACY TUTORIAL

Sharon A. Weiner

Purdue University

Nancy Pelaez

Purdue University

Karen Chang

Purdue University

John Weiner

XXIV Century Press, Inc.

ABSTRACT

This study examined the perceptions of two groups of students to obtain different perspectives

on the online information literacy tutorial, CORE (Comprehensive Online Research Education,

to plan for its update. The CORE tutorial includes seven modules: “Planning Your Project,”

“Topic Exploration,” “Types of Information,” “Search Tools,” “Search Strategies,” “Evaluating

Sources,” and “Copyright, Plagiarism, and Citing Sources.” First-year students in biology and

nursing courses responded to a survey after completing the CORE modules. Students indicated

that they liked learning through an online tutorial. However, they thought that the tutorial could

be improved with shorter modules and the addition of video and audio content. Few students

reported learning important information from the “Copyright, Plagiarism, and Citing Sources,”

“Evaluating Resources,” and “Types of Information” modules. They suggested topics for addi-

tional tutorials: how to use library databases and Microsoft Excel; how to evaluate the quality of

information, how to cite references, and how to find statistics.

187

[ARTICLE]

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/core/login/login.cfm

INTRODUCTION

College and university students,

undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate,

are adult learners whose learning

preferences generally are self-directness;

experiential (discussion, problem-solving);

application to real life; and competency-

based (Brookfield, 1986). These attributes

influence their acceptance of instructional

materials and methods. Online tutorials are

asynchronous methods of delivering

individualized instruction that have

flexibility in the pace of learning, its

structure and method, and the material to be

learned (Betrus, 2002). Students can work

through tutorials in their chosen location at

their own convenience to accomplish

additional instruction within a course but

outside of scheduled class time. There are

some indications that online instruction in

basic library skills may be as effective as in-

person instruction (Zhang, 2007).

Two possible ways to evaluate web-based

tutorials are to measure student learning

(Oakleaf, 2009; Tronstad, Phillips, Garcia,

& Harlow, 2009; Noe, 2005) and to study

how effectively students use and navigate

through them (Lindsay, Cummings,

Johnson, & Scales, 2006). A 2009 study

examined 180 tutorials produced by

academic libraries using 30 quality

indicators and concluded that “much work

remains to be done before the web-based

tutorials created by academic libraries reach

a mature stage of development” (Somoza-

Fernández & Abadal, 2009). Many tutorials

did not incorporate active learning, although

other studies indicate that active learning is

preferable (Anderson, Wilson, Livingston,

& LoCicero, 2008; Hrycaj, 2005). A

learning outcomes study randomized

students into three groups: those who used a

tutorial; those who used a tutorial with the

guidance of a librarian; and those who

attended in-person instruction by a librarian.

The group that attended an in-person

instructional session showed the most

improvement between pre- and post-test

scores (Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002).

Appelt and Pendell (2010) conducted focus

groups of faculty to learn their perceptions

of tutorials developed for students in the

health sciences. They found that there were

differences in opinions on the ease of use,

navigation, and aesthetics of the tutorial

based on whether the respondent was from

nursing, medicine, or dentistry. Respondents

suggested replacing “library jargon” with

terminology used in the subject disciplines.

They suggested simplifying a flowchart that

described the publication cycle. Some

respondent groups indicated that the tutorial

may have placed more emphasis on

quantitative research over qualitative in a

hierarchy of preferred methodologies. Some

faculty discouraged students from using

Google and did not think it should be

included in the tutorial as a resource.

Respondents thought that a glossary of

terms would be a useful addition.

Students, as the intended user group, should

be involved in the development of

information literacy tutorials (Sullivan,

2004). This can occur by involving students

in the assessment of the effectiveness of

tutorials. Before 2005, there was little

published on usability and online

information literacy instruction (Bury &

Oud, 2005; Sullivan, 2004). Since then,

Bury and Oud (2005) conducted usability

testing to evaluate user experiences and

preferences in preparation for updating a

tutorial. They asked four students to log

their impressions of the navigation/usability

and tutorial content. Bowles-Terry, Hensley,

and Hinchliffe (2010) reported that they

developed best practices for video tutorials

through interviews with 15 students. Mages

Weiner et al., Biology and Nursing Students Communications in Information Literacy 5(2), 2012

188

and Garson (2010) conducted a mixed

methods assessment of a tutorial on how to

cite references using the American

Psychological Association (APA) format.

Johnston (2010, p. 217) evaluated an

information literacy tutorial for first-year

social work students because “development

and maintaining an online information

tutorial requires a large commitment from

the librarian.”

It is possible that students’ preferences in

relation to online information literacy

instruction may differ by program of study.

In planning an information literacy

initiative, “the cultural differences between

institutions, disciplines, and professional

communities must all be taken into

account” (Walter, 2007, p. 62).

There are approximately 40,000 students at

Purdue University. To provide a resource

that ensured that all undergraduate students

could learn basic concepts about

information literacy online, the Purdue

University Libraries developed an online

tutorial entitled CORE (Comprehensive

Online Research Education) in 1997. CORE

consists of seven modules: “Planning Your

Project,” “Topic Exploration,” “Types of

Information,” “Search Tools,” “Search

Strategies,” “Evaluating Sources,” and

“Copyright, Plagiarism, and Citing

Sources.” From 2005 to 2009, the tutorial

received over 6,000 hits. Sullivan (2004)

described the Purdue University Libraries

tutorial, CORE, as providing:

an exemplary overview of the

research process with some special

features. The developers have done

an excellent job of providing an

overview of the objectives, not just

at the beginning of the tutorial but

also in each of the subsections. The

graphics and the layout of the

navigation panels are concise and

easily understood. In addition to

quizzes that allow users to assess

their knowledge of concepts, the

tutorial has a live on-line practice

session that does an excellent job

of prompting the user through the

split-screen scenario without losing

or confusing them. One of the

more impressive features in this

tutorial is the module called “Plan

Your Project.” The developers

explain in detail how students

should divide their time when

approaching a term paper project…

the tutorial also provides a project

planner module in which the

student can enter a start date and a

due date, and the module will then

create a detailed project timeline.

Because many freshmen have

difficulty with time management,

this is an especially important

feature (Sullivan, 2004, p. 82-83).

Such modules that can function either

independently or in a linear manner allow

for optimal flexibility in online information

literacy learning (Sullivan, 2004). Sullivan’s

assessment of the CORE tutorial reflected

the instructor’s or expert’s view of the

instruction. However, adult learning theory

stresses the active involvement of the

student in the learning process. To

accomplish this type of assessment, the

student should be encouraged to critique the

instruction. The designers should pay

careful attention to such information as they

develop replacement modules.

The usage of the CORE tutorial provided

justification for the libraries to plan for

substantial changes to the CORE modules to

incorporate assessment, active learning, and

newer technologies more fully. The purpose

of this project was to assess student


189

experiences and perceptions about using

CORE and to solicit suggestions from them

for improvements. The opportunity to gain

students’ evaluations of the CORE tutorial

occurred as the result of its use in two first-

year undergraduate courses. A collaboration

between professors of library science,

biological sciences, and nursing was an

example of the sharing of goals, tasks, and

extensive planning and implementation that

foster learning and advance knowledge

(Raspa & Ward, 2000), and is a best

practice for library tutorial development

(Blummer & Kritskaya, 2009) This study

reports on the perceptions of two groups of

students, providing different perspectives on

the present CORE tutorial to plan for its

update.

METHODS

The authors collaboratively developed the

online survey (see Appendix) based on

information they wanted to learn from the

students about the tutorial. Administering

the survey to student groups in two majors

with differing emphases on research would

provide varied student perspectives to assist

in revising the CORE tutorial.

The survey was separately administered to

309 first-year students in a first-year biology

course and 60 students in a first-year

nursing course at Purdue University in

January 2010 after they completed the

CORE tutorial. These groups were selected

because the instructors required or

encouraged the students to use the CORE

tutorial as a self-directed learning activity.

Information literacy is an integral part of the

freshman-level Nursing Informatics course.

Those students were required to complete

all seven CORE modules. The students in

this course earned 10% of their grade by

completing the modules. In contrast, the

biology students had the option of selecting

modules to complete. They did not receive

credit for completing the modules. Biology

students’ grades were based on the number

of “points” accumulated throughout the

course. Fourteen percent of the points

involved research, which was a small

component of the overall coursework.

The survey consisted of multiple choice and

open-ended questions. The first-year

biology and first-year nursing students were

asked to describe their experience with and

perception of the CORE tutorial, to provide

suggestions for a newer version, and to

recommend other topics for the

development of future tutorials.

RESULTS

Respondent Characteristics

Biology students self-selected the modules

they completed according to personal

interests and perceived learning needs.

Nursing students were required to complete

all modules as an assignment. Ninety-four

percent (n=292) of the biology students in

the class responded to the survey. Among

these students, 56% (n=164) were female;

74% (n=215) were first-year students; 17%

(n=50) were sophomores; and 9% (n=27)

were juniors or seniors. Most of them

indicated that their major was in the College

of Science (77%, n=225), which is the home

for the biology course involved. The

biology students had various degree

objectives: 50% (n=146), a biology degree;

15% (n=43), a pre-med program; 12%

(n=35), a biochemistry degree; and 1%

(n=4), an agriculture or wildlife biology

degree.

Almost all of the nursing students (97%,

n=58) completed all CORE modules. The

nursing students were female (96%, n=48)

and in their first year of the program (96%,

n=48). All respondents indicated that their


190

major was in the College of Pharmacy,

Nursing, and Health Sciences.

Table 1 shows the percentage of biology

students who completed each of the

individual CORE modules. The only

modules that a majority of these students

completed were the “Planning Your

Project” (62%, n=182) and “Search

Tools” (56%, n=164) modules. “Evaluating

Sources” was the module that the smallest

percentage of students completed (30%,

n=89).

Self-Reported Learning

Students were asked several questions

related to self-reported learning (see

Appendix). Fifty-three percent of biology

students (n=155) and 75% of nursing

students (n=45) indicated that they liked the

CORE tutorial because they learned

information perceived to be important. Forty

-three percent of biology students (n=126)

and 21% (n=12) of nursing students did not

know any of the information that was

included in the CORE tutorial. Twenty-nine

percent of biology students (n=86) and 17%

(n=10) of nursing students indicated they

already knew the subject matter that was in

the CORE tutorial before completing it.

Seventy-six percent of biology students who

indicated that they learned important

information from the tutorial also indicated

that they did not know any of the

information prior to taking the tutorial

(p=.020). Ninety-one percent (n=41) of

nursing students who indicated that they

learned important information from the

tutorial also indicated that they did not

know any of the information prior to taking

the tutorial (p=.005).

The students were asked to identify the most

important things they learned from the

CORE tutorial. Nine percent (n=14) of

biology students and 7% (n=3) of nursing

students considered the “Copyright,

Plagiarism, and Citing Sources” module as

an important source. Both groups of

students indicated that they learned the least

from the “Topic Exploration” module (1%

of biology students; 2% of nursing

students), while 8% and 10% of biology or

nursing students, respectively, rated the

“Evaluating Sources” module as an

important source. Both student groups

perceived the “Planning Your Projects”

module differently, with 21% of biology

students and 2% of nursing students

indicating that it provided important

information. The “Types of Information”

module was considered important by 7% of

biology students and 27% of nursing

students.

There was a correlation between completing

the “Copyright, Plagiarism, and Citing

Sources” module and the biology students’

indication that they learned about

preventing plagiarism. All of the students

who completed this module indicated that

they learned about preventing plagiarism.

There was a statistically significant

relationship between biology students who

reported that they liked the CORE tutorial

because they learned important information

and their completion of four of the

individual modules. Table 2 shows that

more than half of the biology students who

indicated they liked the CORE tutorial

because they learned important information

also completed the “Planning Your

Project” (67%, n=104) or “Search

Tools” (63%, n=97) modules.

Both nursing and biology students reported

that they learned how to avoid plagiarism by

taking the tutorial modules. The

“Copyright” module specifically covers

plagiarism. A predominance of nursing


191

students stated that they learned this subject

matter through the modules. One hundred

percent of the nursing students who

completed the “Copyright, Plagiarism, and

Citing Sources” module also indicated that

they learned important information from the

tutorial. Only 24% of nursing students knew

the information about plagiarism prior to

taking the tutorial. Biology students showed

a different pattern with 41% reporting they

knew about plagiarism before taking the

CORE tutorial. Forty-two percent of biology

students and 78% of nursing students

learned about plagiarism by completing the

“Copyright” module that specifically covers

plagiarism.

Preference for Online

Fifty-six percent (n=87) of biology students

who learned important information from the

tutorial liked to work on it online (p <

0.001). There was no statistical difference in

nursing students who learned important

information and liked to work on the tutorial

online.

Perception of Tutorial

Only around 20% of both groups thought

the tutorial was the right length, although

the majority of respondents liked working

with it online. Most of the students thought

the tutorial was too long. When asked what

would make the tutorial better, students

could check any of the options given, or

they could add their own. Fifty-six percent

(n=164) of the responses from biology

students and 33% (n=19) of the responses

from nursing students indicated a preference

for video enhancements. Thirty-nine percent

(n=114) of the responses from biology

students and 41% (n=24) of the responses

from nursing students indicated a preference

for audio. A desire for access by cell phone

was reported by 14% (n=41) of biology

students and 10% (n=6) of nursing students.

A desire for access by podcast was reported

by 10% (n=29) of biology students and 5%

(n=3) of nursing students.

Possible Topics for Other Tutorials

The students were asked what other

research, library, or technology skills they

would like to learn through a tutorial. Table


192

TABLE 1 — PERCENTAGE OF BIOLOGY STUDENTS COMPLETING EACH

MODULE

Module Biology Students (n = 292)

Planning Your Project 62% (n=182)

Topic Exploration 43% (n=126)

Types of Information 37% (n=108)

Search Tools 56% (n=164)

Search Strategies 40% (n=117)

Evaluating Sources 30% (n=89)

Copyright, Plagiarism, and Citing Sources 42% (n=124)

3 shows that biology students most wanted

additional tutorials on how to find statistics

for their courses (48%, n=139); how to

evaluate the quality of information (43%,

n=125); and how to cite references in a

bibliography (43%, n=127). At least 40% of

nursing students expressed a desire for

additional tutorials on all of the topics

except how to create PowerPoint

presentations (16%, n=9).

DISCUSSION

This report described the findings in a

survey of 292 biology and 58 nursing

students concerning their experience with an

online information literacy tutorial. The

majority of nursing students who responded

to the survey were first-year students and

female. The biology students were more

balanced in gender and came from a variety

of science majors. Respondents from both

groups reported that they liked having the

ability to complete the tutorial online and

indicated that they learned important

information from it.

Importantly, this study included student

groups from two different academic

programs, each having different perceptions

about the tutorial they used for an

introduction to information literacy. Future

assessment of tutorials should include

feedback from students who are potential

users about their experiences, as seen from

the framework of different programs with

different assignments.

The students expressed an interest in having

tutorials on evaluating the quality of

information and citing references in a

bibliography. Interestingly, few of them

reported learning from the “Evaluating

Sources” or “Copyright, Plagiarism, &

Citing Sources” modules. The subject

matter in these modules needs to be

examined closely and revised for relevance

to student needs. This disconnect is a cogent

example of differences in attitudes and

perceptions. While the content included in

modules of this type may be relatively

standard, the presentation formats may need

to be drastically revised. This suggests that

there is a need for a process of continuing

development and student evaluation.

A recent study on information behaviors in

undergraduate students (Head & Eisenberg,

2010) concluded that students have the most

difficulty with defining a topic for their

research; however, the students in this study

found the “Topic Exploration” module the

least informative of the modules. The

content and format of this tutorial should be

re-considered. Format is important to these


193

TABLE 2 — BIOLOGY STUDENTS WHO LEARNED IMPORTANT THINGS

FROM INDIVIDUAL CORE MODULES

Module Biology Students (n = 292)

Planning Your Project 67% (n=104)

Topic Exploration 49% (n=76)

Search Tools 63% (n=97)

Evaluating Sources 36% (n=55)

adult learners as evidenced by the numerous

suggestions that the tutorial was too long

and would be improved if it included video

and audio content. These results confirmed

those of other studies that evaluated online

tutorials. Respondents in those studies

reported that the tutorials were too long and

too repetitive. The tutorials in those studies

also had too much detail or were too basic.

They were also too text-based or should

have included pictures, video, or animation

and they should have been interactive

(Lindsay, Cummings, Johnson, & Scales,

2006; Bury & Oud, 2005).

The nursing students were required to

complete all seven CORE modules. In

contrast, the biology students primarily self-

selected the “Planning Projects” and

“Search Tools” modules. The differences in

the students’ perceptions could be related to

the amount of emphasis placed on research

in the two courses included in the study.

Nursing students were enrolled in an

informatics course, whereas biology

students were introduced to research as a

small component of a first-year biology

course.

Only about one-third of biology students

completed the modules on information

sources and evaluating sources. This

selection process is consistent with the

needs perceived by students beginning their

college experience. Many students realize

that they need to know more about search

strategies. Of special concern is the low

frequency of biology and nursing students

who cited “Evaluating Sources” as a source

of important information. The content of

that tutorial should be re-evaluated; there

may be a need for more explicit assignments

to make students aware of the need to

evaluate the quality of their sources.

Students seek answers quickly and tend to

rely on unfiltered sources such as Wikipedia

and Google (Head & Eisenberg, 2010a; Lee,

2008). A module dealing with evaluating

sources will need to convince students why

it is important for them to find resources

that provide accurate, useful, and reliable

information.

Nursing students seemed to learn more from

the modules than the biology students.

Possible explanations could be that they

were required to complete all of the

modules, that the modules were more


194

TABLE 3 — TOPIC PREFERENCES FOR ADDITIONAL TUTORIALS

Biology Students Nursing Students Proposed Topic

32% (n=92) 45% (n=26) Library databases

35% (n=102) 57% (n=33) Using Microsoft Excel

8% (n=23) 16% (n=9) How to create PowerPoint presentations

43% (n=125) 50% (n=29) How to evaluate the quality of information

43% (n=127) 53% (n=31) How to cite references in a bibliography for

my papers

48% (n=139) 40% (n=23) How to find statistics for my courses

relevant to their course assignments, or that

they knew less about the information

literacy topics presented in the modules. A

characteristic that differed between biology

and nursing students was the percentage

reporting that they had prior knowledge of

the subject matter of the individual modules.

Seventy-six percent of biology students and

91% of nursing students reported that they

did not know the information in the tutorials

before completing them. Such self-report

questions might be advantageous in

developing appropriate modules that match

the needs of the students in the future.

In the nursing course, students were

involved in two group projects using online

library databases. Students were expected to

select at least two credible, reliable, and

current research articles related to a group

topic, and to discuss their articles during

group presentations. That may explain why

about 30% of nursing students perceived

“Types of Information,” “Search Tools,”

and “Search Strategies” modules as

providing important information. Like the

nursing students, biology students were

asked to find and write about original

research (Clase, Grundlach, & Pelaez,

2010). The difference is that the points they

earned were mostly exam points for learning

about research (experimental design) and

very little credit was given for the process.

Fewer biology students perceived a need for

help with search strategies.

Nursing students were given three weeks to

view the CORE modules. They might have

viewed all seven CORE modules in a day,

which could have led to the perception that

the CORE modules were too long. To

address this concern, the length of the

tutorials should be considered. Other

approaches would be to instruct students to

view the CORE modules over different days

or to integrate the assignment of specific

modules with the related class content or

assignments.

Few students perceived that they learned

important information from the “Copyright,

Plagiarism, and Citing Sources,”

“Evaluating Resources,” and “Types of

Information” modules. Students desired

future tutorials on evaluating the quality of

information, how to cite references in a

bibliography for their papers, and how to

find statistics for their courses. This

indicates that the “Copyright, Plagiarism,

and Citing Sources,” “Evaluating

Resources,” and “Types of Information”

modules are not meeting student learning

needs and should be improved. The current

“Citing Sources” module presented

information on MLA citation style because

CORE was developed for a general

undergraduate population and MLA is a

generally accepted format. But these

students were expected to use the APA

citation format in their course. A new

tutorial developed by the Harvard Graduate

School of Education Library on using APA

format for citation might be substituted or

used as a model (Mages & Garson, 2010).

Few students preferred access to the tutorial

by cell phone or podcast. This is an

interesting finding, since a 2010 report

indicated that mobile computing is one of

the technologies likely to enter the

mainstream of institutions within 1-2 years

(Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Stone, 2010).

There is a need for further investigation to

understand this seeming discrepancy.

To help students understand the importance

of evaluating their sources, it might be

useful to give course assignments that have

such an expectation. Rubrics for evaluating

bibliographies can be helpful for this

purpose (Foutch, Griffith, Lannom,

Sommer, & Weiner, 2009). Providing more


195

extensive pre-testing to help students know

when they are prepared enough to opt out of

the tutorial could result in modules that

were more effective in providing the

information desired in an engaging manner.

Most importantly, designing short tutorial

components matched to targeted course

goals would provide flexibility in accessing

content appropriate for any first-year course.

This was not designed as a true comparison

study, which is a limitation. Nursing

students were required to take all of the

CORE modules before responding to the

survey, while biology students selected the

modules they wanted to take. That

difference may have had an effect on the

students’ responses.

CONCLUSION

The importance of information literacy in

providing the college student with the tools

for lifelong and effective learning and

decision-making is evident. Online tutorial

modules exemplify the flexibility and

capability needed for students to acquire

essential information literacy competencies.

Online learning can be effective if the

learner perceives it as useful. Non-linear

learning that occurs through tutorial

modules is a desired approach that provides

access to the content of interest at an

optimal time through self-directed learning.

This concept enhances interest and learning

capability. Barbour and Reeves (2009)

described the concept of virtual schooling

that involves high-quality learning

opportunities and educational choice. This

form of instruction may be well-suited to a

postsecondary student who possesses an

independent orientation toward learning

with enhanced literacy and technology

skills.

When the two groups of students in this

study critiqued an online information

literacy tutorial, there were important

differences in their perceptions. Nursing

students were required to complete all of the

modules. About one-third of biology

students completed all parts of the tutorial.

The results indicated that the students in

both groups wanted changes in the length

and presentation of the tutorial. The results

reported here support the idea that tutorials

must include material that the students

perceive as immediately useful. That

perception is related to course assignments

and the students’ personal characteristics.

The findings from the survey indicate that

there is value in soliciting feedback about

the content and format of tutorials from

potential student user groups. This

information from the target market can be

incorporated into the development and

modification process. The survey results are

the reflections of first-year biology students

and nursing students at one university. The

intent of the survey was to determine the

student perspective on changes needed in

online tutorials dealing with information

literacy and related issues. It was feasible to

involve students in the instructional process

by having them evaluate the instruction

provided.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R.P., Wilson, S.P., Livingston,

M.B. & LoCicero, A.D. (2008).

Characteristics and content of medical

library tutorials: A review. Journal of the

Medical Library Association 96, 61-63.

Retrieved from http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC2212336

Appelt, K.M., & Pendell, K. (2010). Assess

and invest: Faculty feedback on library

tutorials. College and Research Libraries,


196

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2212336/



71, 245-253. Retrieved from http://

crl.acrl.org/content/71/3/245.abstract

Barbour, K., & Reeves, T.C. (2009). The

reality of virtual schools: A review of the

literature. Computers & Education, 52, 402-

416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009

Betrus, A.K. (2002). Individualized

instruction. In J.W. Guthrie (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of education, Vol. 4 2nd ed.

(pp. 1129-1133). New York: Macmillan

Reference USA.

Blummer, B.A., & Kritskaya, O. (2009).

Best practices for creating an online tutorial:

A literature review. Journal of Web

Librarianship, 3, 199-216. doi:

10.1080/19322900903050799

Bowles-Terry, M., Hensley, M.K., &

Hinchliffe, L.J. (2010). Best practices for

online video tutorials in academic libraries:

A study of student preferences and

understanding. Communications in

Information Literacy, 4, 17-28. Retrieved

from http://www.comminfolit.org/

index.php/cil/article/view/Vol4-

2010AR1/112

Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and

facilitating adult learning. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bury, S., & Oud, J. (2005). Usability testing

of an online information literacy tutorial.

Reference Services Review, 33, 54-65.

Churkovich, M., & Oughtred, C. (2002).

Can an online tutorial pass the test for

library instruction? An evaluation and

comparison of library skills instruction

methods for first year students at Deakin

University. Australian Academic and

Research Libraries, 33, 25-38.

Clase, K.L., Gundlach, E, & Pelaez, N.J.

(2010). Calibrated Peer Review for

computer-assisted learning of biological

research competencies. Biochemistry and

Molecular Biology Education, 38, 290-295.

doi: 10.1002/bmb.20415

Foutch, L.J., Griffith, B.G., Lannom, L.A.,

Sommer, D., & Weiner, S.G. (2009). How

to embed a librarian. In B. Sietz, et al.,

(Eds.), Uncharted waters: Tapping the

depths of our community to enhance

learning: Thirty-fifth National LOEX

Library Instruction Conference proceedings

(pp. 51-56). Ypsilanti, MI: LOEX Press.

Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, M.E. (2010a).

How today’s college students use Wikipedia

for course-related research. First Monday,

15. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/

htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/

view/2830/2476

Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, M.E. (2010b).

Truth be told: How college students

evaluate and use information in the digital

age. Seattle, WA: The Information School,

University of Washington. Retrieved from

http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/

PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf

Hrycaj, P.L. (2005). Elements of active

learning in the online tutorials of ARL

members. Reference Services Review, 33,

210-218. doi: 10.1108/00907320510597417

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone,

S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin,

Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/

horizon2010/chapters/technologies

Johnston, N. (2010). Is an online learning

module an effective way to develop

information literacy skills? Australian

Academic & Research Libraries, 41, 207-


197

http://crl.acrl.org/content/71/3/245.abstract


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009

http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php/cil/article/view/Vol4-2010AR1/112



http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476



http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf

http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf

http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/chapters/technologies/

http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/chapters/technologies/

18.

Lee, H. (2008). Information structures and

undergraduate students. Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 34, 211-219.

Lindsay, E.B., Cummings, L., Johnson,

C.M., & Scales, B.J. (2006). If you build it,

will they learn? Assessing online

information literacy. College and Research

Libraries, 67, 429-445. Retrieved from


Mages, W.K., & Garson, D.S. (2010). Get

the cite right: Design and evaluation of a

high-quality online citation tutorial. Library

& Information Science Research, 32, 138-

146. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.10.004

Noe, N.W., & Bishop, B.A. (2004).

Assessing Auburn University Library’s

Tiger Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT).

Reference Services Review, 33, 173-187.

doi: 10.1108/00907320510597372

Oakleaf, M. (2009). The information

literacy instruction assessment cycle: A

guide for increasing student learning and

improving librarian instructional skills.

Journal of Documentation, 65, 539-60.

Raspa, D., & Ward, D. (2000). The

collaborative imperative: Librarians and

faculty working together in the information

universe. Chicago: Association of College

and Research Libraries.

Somoza-Fernández, M., & Abadal, E.

(2009). Analysis of web-based tutorials

created by academic libraries. Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 35, 126-31.

doi :10.1016/j.acalib.2009.01.010

Sullivan, P. (2004). Developing freshman-

level tutorials to promote information

literacy. In

Rockman, I. F. and Associates (Eds.),

Integrating information literacy into the

higher education curriculum: Practical

models for transformation. San Francisco,

CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tronstad, B., Phillips, L., Garcia, J., &

Harlow, M.A. (2009). Assessing the TIP

online information literacy tutorial.

Reference Services Review, 37, 54-64. doi:

10.1108/00907320910934995

Walter, S. (2007). Using cultural

perspectives to foster information literacy

across the curriculum. In S.C. Curson &

L.D. Lampert (Eds.), Proven strategies for

building an information literacy program.

(pp. 55-75). New York: Neal-Schuman

Publishers, Inc.

Zhang, L., Watson, E.M., & Banfield, L.

(2007). The efficacy of computer-assisted

instruction versus face-to-face instruction in

academic libraries: A systematic review.

Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33, 478

-484.


198


APPENDIX

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey on CORE tutorial -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which module(s) of the CORE tutorial did you complete?

Planning Your Project

Topic Exploration

Types of Information

Search Tools

Search Strategies

Evaluating Sources

Copyright, Plagiarism, & Citing Sources

List the most important things you learned from the CORE tutorial.

The most important things I learned from the CORE tutorial were:

What information that was in the CORE tutorial did you already know before you took the

tutorial?

I already knew:

I did not know any of the information that was in the CORE tutorial

What did you like about the CORE tutorial?

I learned important information

It was the right length

I could work on it online

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)


199

What did you not like about the CORE tutorial?

It was too long

It was too short

I already knew what was in it


I would like the CORE tutorial better if it (check all that apply):

Was a podcast

Was a video

Had audio

Was accessible through my cell phone

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY

What other research, library, or technology skills would you like to learn through an online

tutorial?

More about library databases

Using Microsoft Excel

How to create PowerPoint presentations

How to evaluate the quality of information

How to cite references in a bibliography for my papers

How to find statistics for my courses


Background Question: In what level of class are you? (Choose one)

First-year

Sophomore


200

Junior

Senior

Graduate Student


Background question: What is your gender?

Male

Female

In what College or School is your major?

College of Agriculture

College of Consumer and Family Sciences

College of Education

College of Engineering

College of Liberal Arts

Krannert School of Management

College of Pharmacy, Nursing, and Health Sciences

College of Science

College of Technology

School of Veterinary Medicine

I haven't declared a major

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)


201

BIOLOGY AND NURSING STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS …foster learning and advance knowledge (Raspa & Ward,...

Documents

Transcript of BIOLOGY AND NURSING STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS …foster learning and advance knowledge (Raspa & Ward,...